THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE - “These figures do not attempt to allege that foreign
nationals in the country illegally commit more
crimes than other groups,” the report states. “It
simply identifies thousands of crimes that should
not have occurred and thousands of victims that
should not have been victimized because the
perpetrator should not be here.”
CHARLOTTE CUTHBERTSON

The victory came in the form of
preventing the ascension of Mark McWatters to the Board of Directors of the
Export-Import Bank of the United States, whose nomination Sen. Richard Shelby,
R-Ala, has successfully bottled up in the Senate Banking Committee. (Photo:
Department of Defense/Sipa USA/Newscom)

It’s not every day that the American
people score a victory over the global elite, but that’s exactly what happened
last week.

The victory came in the form of
preventing the ascension of Mark McWatters to the Board of Directors of the
Export-Import Bank of the United States, whose nomination Sen. Richard
Shelby, R-Ala., has successfully bottled up in the Senate Banking Committee.

Created by executive order during
the height of the Great Depression, the Ex-Im Bank has been used as a tool to
reward politically connected elites, both in the United States and abroad, for
decades.

Here’s how it works: a large
corporation pays money to lobbyists and politicians so that Ex-Im will leverage
the full faith and credit of American taxpayers to guarantee loans used to
finance global transactions.

Because these loans are backed by
you, the United States taxpayer, these politically favored global corporations
are able to secure below-market interest rates. The difference between the
market interest rate the global corporations would have paid to finance their
transactions and the below-market interest rate made available by Ex-Im’s
guarantees acts as a giant taxpayer subsidy for these global corporations.

The lobbyists and politicians
supporting these global corporations will tell you that Ex-Im’s loan guarantees
are cost-free programs that support American middle-class jobs.

Not quite.

First of all, as any economist will
tell you, there is no such thing as a free lunch. As the Congressional Research
Service has explained, “Subsidized export financing merely shifts production
among sectors within the economy, rather than adding to the overall level of
economic activity, and subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of
domestic consumption.”

Secondly, if these global
corporations are so concerned about American middle-class jobs, then why do
they spend millions of dollars lobbying foreign governments to create and
maintain their own version of our Export-Import Bank? These corporations aren’t
concerned as much about American jobs as they are about maximizing the number
of foreign governments that subsidize their business.

And who exactly is on the other end
of all these Ex-Im financed deals? China mostly.

China is by far the biggest
beneficiary of Ex-Im guaranteed loans. And since most of that financing
benefits state-owned firms, the Ex-Im Bank is one of the largest subsidizers of
Chinese communist officials in the world.

For instance, in 2013, the
Export-Import Bank financed a $63 million deal to help build a semiconductor
manufacturing plant in China. How exactly does subsidizing Chinese
semiconductor manufactures help save American jobs?

It doesn’t.

But it does help line the pockets of
the governing elite both here and in China. That is what the Export-Import Bank
is all about.

By blocking the nomination of
McWatters to the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors, Shelby has denied
Ex-Im the quorum it needs to authorize loan guarantees over $10 million.
Between 2007 and 2014, 84 percent of the bank’s subsidy and loan-guarantee
deals exceeded $10 million, and the vast majority were given to the wealthiest,
most well-connected businesses that should have no problem acquiring financing
on the open market.

The American people have not
succeeded in shutting down this spigot of cash to the world’s global elite yet,
but we are gaining votes in the House and Senate every year.

We will win eventually.

THE “HOPE &
CHANGE” HUCKSTER WHO REALLY WAS GEORGE BUSH’S

THIRD AND FOURTH TERMS ON
STEROIDS!

“The
long-term reversal of the social gains made by the working class has

only
accelerated in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. President Obama

has
overseen one of the greatest transfers of wealth from the working
class

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STOOD PASSIVELY WHILE THE BANKSTERS LOADED THE POCKETS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND WENT TO LOOTING A TRILLION DOLLARS OUT OF THE HOME VALUES OF AMERICA.EVEN BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, THE PSYCOPATH HUCKSTER FROM CHICAGO, BARACK OBAMA, HAD ALREADY FILLED HIS POCKETS WITH MORE BANKSTER BRIBES THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. WHAT DID THESE BANKSTERS KNOW THAT THE REST OF US DIDN'T ABOUT THE "HOPE & CHANGE" HUCKSTER?OBAMA KEPT HIS PROMISE HANDING HIS CRONIES BILLIONS IN NO STRINGS, NO INTEREST LOANS AND MADE SURE HIS BANKSTER-OWNED AG HOLDER WOULD KEEP THEM OUT OF PRISON! OBOMB'S SECOND AG, LORETTA LYNCH WAS ALL BUT HAND PICKED BY OBAMA'S BANKSTERS AND CAME FROM THE BANKSTER SECTOR. SHE CONTINUES TO PROTECT AND SERVE OBAMA'S BANKSTERS!

Some Britons
see ‘Brexit’ effect as comeuppance for perceived greed of London’s financial
sector

The U.K.’s financial sector, largely centered in London,
could face turmoil if the country elects to leave the European Union. HSBC
Holdings PLC has said that up to 1,000 staff could be moved in the aftermath of
a ‘Brexit.’ Photo: Leon Neal/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

By

Sara Schaefer Muñoz and

Giles Turner

The Wall
Street Journal

June 19,
2016 6:46 a.m. ET

LONDON—Politicians
and bankers have warned that a U.K. exit from the European Union will cripple
London’s financial sector. But that argument gets the short shrift from East
London construction worker Steve McIlhagga.

From the blue-collar
neighborhood of Poplar in East London, Mr. McIlhagga, 53 years old, sees an
independent U.K. as better for working-class Britons—and said he wouldn’t
be bothered by a few bankers losing jobs.

“They were
the ones who drove this country into recession, and are still getting millions
in bonuses!” said Mr. McIlhagga, clad in a dusty hard hat on his way home
one recent afternoon. “They want to stay in the EU because they are making
money. But where I live, there’s a lot of unemployment. I can’t afford things.
Everything’s gotten worse.”

With recent
polls showing a several percentage point lead for the “Leave” camp ahead of the June
23 vote, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron
and the country’s business leaders have continued to argue that Britain should
stay in the EU, in large part because its financial hub is on the line and
firms might be forced to relocate bankers out of the U.K.

But, in
a country still scarred by the 2008 financial crisis, saving the bankers is a
difficult rallying cry.

“If you said
bankers might leave, some people might cheer,” said Mark Boleat, chairman of
the City of London Policy and Resources Committee.

Nevertheless,
Mr. Boleat and others have continued to warn that loss of access to the single
European market in the case of a
British exit, or “Brexit,” would be a dire blow to London as a
regional business hub.

Leaving the
EU ”would no doubt destroy a huge amount of jobs, not just here in London but
also in the financial services centers we have in the country,” the prime
minister said in a speech at a World Economic Forum event last month, adding
that “100,000 jobs could go in the City of London alone.”

“We would
face attempts to lure businesses from London to Paris, Frankfurt, and Dublin,”
said Lucy Thomas, deputy director of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign,
in a report.

But such
arguments haven’t moved Joanna Harrison, a 28-year-old London gallery
assistant, who sees the vote as “a symbolic thing about whether we leave
Europe.”

“There are a
lot bigger things than worrying about bankers and their jobs,” she said.

To reach
skeptics such as Mr. McIlhagga, members of the campaign to stay
in the European market have tried to drive home the point that a blow to
Britain’s financial sector could cause job losses in areas such as food
services, hotels and property development. The financial-services industry
accounts for just 3.4% of the U.K.’s total jobs, but 8% of GDP, contributing
£129.9 billion ($186.41 billion) to the U.K. economy in 2014, according to
government data.

The U.K.
financial sector also contributed around 11.5% of U.K. tax receipts in 2014,
according to a report from consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and the City
of London Corp., the governing body of London’s financial sector.

Statistics
such as this can ring hollow in London’s more deprived districts. Residents
often feel far removed from the shiny towers, bustling exchanges and money
making power of the U.K. capital’s financial core.

“You don’t
really see much of an effect here” of London’s financial center, said construction
worker Andrew Wards, 29, who of an industrial neighborhood near the Olympic
Park. He plans to vote to leave the EU.

One
impact Mr. McIlhagga has seen is that of well-paid City workers
spilling over into East London’s more desirable areas and driving up
housing costs, he said.

“A
one-bedroom flat in my neighborhood is £250,000 [about $360,000] and that’s
more than double what it was 10 years ago. It’s bloody ridiculous,” said Mr.
McIlhagga, who earns £360, or around $520, a week.

It appears
those who support staying in the EU may have underestimated just how much
ordinary citizens dislike bankers.

In 2013, a
survey of more than 11,000 individuals by YouGov and Cambridge University found
83% of respondents thought bankers were “greedy and get paid too much,” while
80% thought banks weren’t doing enough to “get us out of this economic crisis
which they helped cause.”

Institutions
such as the Royal Bank of ScotlandRBS 5.02 % PLC and other banks had to be bailed out by
taxpayers during the financial crisis, to the tune of more than £100

billion. Many chief executives still receive big

bonuses and their high-end lifestyles
are splashed across the front of U.K. tabloids.

A
2014 headline in popular U.K. tabloid the Daily Mirror blasted “fat cat
bankers” for receiving a total of £80 billion in payouts, “while millions of
families are still suffering.”

Campaigners
for a vote to remain point out that not all bank employees are considered
wealthy and that financial services companies are big employers of people from
a range of backgrounds and across many different business areas.

Mr.
Cameron’s and other politicians’ ardent support for the financial sector ahead
of the vote backfired with Kieran Walsh, an East Londoner who owns a
food-delivery business.

While
unloading a delivery truck, Mr. Walsh said he isn’t convinced the campaign to
remain in the EU has ordinary Britons’ best interests at heart.

“David
Cameron went to Eton, now didn’t he? And that’s where all the bankers went to
school,” said the 54-year-old Mr. Walsh, referring to the elite school near
Windsor Castle. “They’re all in each other’s pockets! They probably stand to
make a lot of money off [remaining in the EU.]”

“We should
get out of the EU, and put the money we save into developing industry and the
north of England again,” he said, to benefit struggling citizens. “Banking jobs
will always just be for

those in the old boys’ club.” ASK THE OBOMB

ABOUT HIS CRONY BANKSTERS!

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:
The rich get much richer, cronies stay out of prison and illegals get millions
of jobs and billions in welfare…..

Poverty
has become more concentrated under Obama

By Nancy Hanover

2 May 2016

Under the Obama administration, more Americans
have

found themselves consigned to economic ghettos, living in

neighborhoods
where more than 40 percent subsist below

the poverty level. Millions more now
live in “high poverty” districts of 20-40

percent poverty, according to
recently released report by the Brookings Institution.

The return of “secular stagnation”

17 June 2016

Since the official end of the US recession in 2009, following the global financial crisis, the conventional wisdom from the Federal Reserve, the US central bank, has been that various “headwinds” are responsible for the failure of the American economy to return to anything resembling its previous growth path.

The underlying assumption has been that the financial crisis of 2008–2009 did not represent any kind of fundamental breakdown in the capitalist economy, but was merely a downturn in the business cycle, albeit a very severe one, from which there would be a return at some point to a “normal” pattern of economic expansion.

However, the press conference of Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen on Wednesday, following the decision by the Federal Open Market Committee not to lift interest rates, saw a marked shift. While her prepared remarks stuck by and large to the official script that the prevailing “headwinds” would ease over time, a rather different assessment emerged during Yellen’s question and answer session with reporters.

In view of the fact that the Fed’s outlook for interest rates had been revised sharply down, even though its projections for gross domestic product growth had not, Yellen was asked whether there had been “a dramatic change in the Committee’s view on the relationship of GDP to [interest] rates.”

Her answer indicated there had, or at least that behind the façade of official pronouncements the view is developing that a fundamental shift is underway.

She noted that the so-called “neutral rate”—that is, the interest rate needed to keep the economy growing at near full employment—was “quite depressed by historical standards” and that “many estimates would put it in real or inflation adjusted terms at near zero.”

Yellen referred, according to the usual script, to “headwinds” and what she called the “lingering effects of the financial crisis,” which were expected to “ease” over time. “But there are also more long lasting or persistent factors that may be at work that are holding down the longer run neutral rates,” she added.

Chief among those factors was “slow productivity growth, which is not just a US phenomenon, but a global phenomenon.” There was considerable uncertainty, but “productivity growth could stay low for a prolonged time” and we have “aging societies in many parts of the world that could depress this neutral rate. … The sense that maybe more of what’s causing this neutral rate to be so low are factors that are not going to be rapidly disappearing but will be part of the new normal.”

Yellen’s comments followed the warning by the Conference Board, a major US economic think tank, that productivity growth could go negative this year for the first time in more than three decades.

While she did not use the term herself, Yellen’s remarks point to the emergence of what former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and others have referred to as “secular stagnation.” This term was first by coined by economist Alvin Hansen in 1938 to describe a structural condition in the capitalist economy where, no matter how low interest rates go, there is no growth because the level of demand, particularly investment, is not in a cyclical downturn but permanentlyinsufficient to ensure economic expansion.

Yellen’s reference to “aging societies” as an explanation for what she clearly recognises as a shift in the global economy, recalls nothing so much as the explanation of the classical bourgeois economist of the early nineteenth century, David Ricardo, who, when confronted with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, ascribed it to the declining fertility of land and the fall in productivity in agriculture. As Marx pithily remarked, horrified by this prospect which called into question the historical viability of the capitalist economy, Ricardo took flight to the sphere of organic chemistry. Likewise Yellen, when confronted with persistent economic trends, seeks refuge in demographics.

In opposition to Ricardo, Marx explained that the real barrier to expanded capitalist production was not a product of nature, but of capital itself—private ownership of the means of production and the profit system.

Economic trends and tendencies reaching back over the past quarter century underscore the point made by Marx. Following the end of the post-war boom and the downturn in profit rates at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s, global capitalism experienced a series of crises, exemplified above all by the persistence of what was known as “stagflation”—low growth and recession combined with high inflation rates.

This crisis was temporarily overcome through an onslaught against the social position of the working class—the mass sacking of air traffic controllers in the US by Reagan in 1981 and the forcible state-suppression of the 1984–85 miners’ strike by the Thatcher government in Britain were key turning points—and the exploitation of new areas of cheap labour through the globalisation of production.

But the limited upturn in the rate of profit this produced did not bring about a return to the conditions of relative economic stability which marked the post-war boom. On the contrary, from the time of the October 1987 US stock market crash, world capitalism has been marked by increasing financial turmoil.

It became increasingly dependent on the injections of cheap money from the Fed and other central banks to quell ever-more severe financial storms—from the Mexican financial crisis of the early 1990s, the Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 and the collapse of Long Term Capital Management, the collapse of the dot.com bubble in 2000–2001, leading to the financial crisis of 2008 set off by the bursting of the sub-prime mortgage bubble.

The Fed and other central banks responded to that crisis as they did in the past, with massive injections of cheap money. But despite the spending of trillions of dollars in the purchase of financial assets and the lowering of interest rates to zero and even below, there has been no revival in the real economy. The only effect of these measures has been to boost financial speculation to unprecedented heights, while producing ever-widening social inequality and worsening wages and social conditions for the world’s working class.

Economic history does not repeat itself. But the capitalist economy does have laws of motion, producing discernible trends and tendencies which find their expression not only in the economy but in politics.

The year 1914 is forever etched in history as the year of the outbreak of World War I. But it was economically significant as well. It marked a downturn in profit and growth rates that, despite all efforts to overcome it, continued through the 1920s and 1930s, resulting in the Great Depression.

These underlying processes produced a contraction in the world economy which led inexorably to the outbreak of World War II as the major capitalist powers engaged in an intensifying struggle for contracting markets and profits, first by use of economic nationalist methods—increased tariffs and the formation of currency blocs—and then by military means.

Today’s world is marked by the return of these conditions: the stagnation of the world economy, glutted markets in a series of commodities and industrial products, persistently low levels of investment, the driving force of economic growth, currency conflicts and intensifying financial crisis, to name but a few examples.

And they are inevitably leading in the same direction as in earlier decades: a world war for the division and re-division of the world economy, with potential nuclear consequences and the destruction of civilisation itself.

The fact that the objective contradictions of capitalism have now managed, at least partially, to have drummed their way into the heads of the overseers of global capitalism, such as Yellen, is an indication of the advanced state of the economic crisis.

It must be a signal to the international working class that the urgent issue before it is the struggle for an international socialist program for the overthrow of the reactionary and outmoded capitalist nation-state and profit system and the building of the world party of socialist revolution, the International Committee of the Fourth International, to lead it.

US economy adds fewest jobs in five years

By Evan Blake4 June 2016

In another indication of a deepening slump in the US economy, the Labor Department reported yesterday that the US economy added only 38,000 jobs in May, the lowest monthly job growth since September 2010.

The report was released merely two days after US President Barack Obama declared in a speech in Elkhart, Indiana that the belief, widespread in the US population, that the economy is doing poorly is a “myth.”

The latest figures sharply contradict such claims. Summarizing the findings of the report, Laura Rosner, an economist at BNP Paribas, told the Associated Press, “The shockingly low payrolls gain in May provides further evidence that the economy is showing clear signs of slowing.”

In addition to the dismal rate of payrolls growth, the Labor Department said a massive 459,000 people left the workforce last month. In other words, 12 times more people gave up looking for work than got a job last month. Simultaneously, the Labor Department reported the number of people working part-time, but who would prefer to have full-time work, increased by 468,000 in May.

The labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage points, after an earlier 0.2 percent decline in April, to a nearly four-decade low of 62.6 percent.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised downward the figures for March and April, which overestimated job growth by a combined 59,000 jobs. Together, the number of jobs created each month between March and May was 116,000, a marked decline from last year’s monthly average of nearly 230,000.

According to the Labor Department, the construction sector lost 15,000 jobs last month, mining and logging industries lost 11,000 jobs and the manufacturing sector lost 10,000 jobs. As with previous months, the jobs added were centered in the low-wage service sector.

The past several quarters have shown slow economic growth in the US. Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of just 0.8 percent in the first quarter of 2016, down from 1.4 percent in the fourth quarter of last year.

The Institute for Supply Management also released a report Friday that rated the US non-manufacturing index as falling to 52.9 from 55.7 in April.

Many major US department store chains, including Macy’s, Kohl’s, JCPenney and Nordstrom, reported sharp declines in sales and profits during the first quarter of 2016.

The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy, meets again on June 14-15. Many had anticipated that the Fed would raise the benchmark federal funds rate, but May’s unexpectedly poor jobs report makes it more likely that the Fed will hold off on raising interest rates until at least its next meeting in late July.

The employment figures were released just days before the crucial California Democratic Primary. In recent weeks, Bernie Sanders has narrowed the gap with frontrunner Hillary Clinton, trailing by only one point among eligible voters in a Thursday Los Angeles Times poll.

Throughout the primary campaign, Clinton has upheld Obama’s legacy as President and maintained that she will continue his economic policies.Even aside from the most recent jobs report, Obama’s claim that “almost every economic measure” has improved under his administration is a patent absurdity.

In reality, the US working class has experienced an unrelenting assault on its living standards over the past eight years. The so-called economic “recovery” under Obama has entailed the creation of part-time and poverty-wage jobs, the slashing of employee benefits, and a continuation of mass unemployment.A report published earlier this year by Princeton University and the RAND Corporation found that all job growth in the US over the last decade was accounted for by the growth of “alternative work arrangements,” or people working as independent contractors, temps, through contract agencies or on-call. Such jobs usually entail minimal job security, health benefits and vacation days.

Between 2005 and 2015, the percentage of the workforce in such contingent arrangements rose from 10.1 percent to 15.8 percent, placing nearly one in six full-time workers in a contingent status. Of these contingent workers, a staggering 32 percent are forced to hold multiple jobs to make ends meet, due to the lack of job security and benefits.

The growth of poverty-wage employment, particularly for youngpeople, has resulted in sweeping demographic changes. A Pew report released last week found that for the first time in 130 years, Americans aged 18-24 are more likely to be living at home than with a spouse or partner.

As a result of eight years of near-zero interest rates, bank bailouts, and “quantitative easing” money printing operations, the wealth of the US financial oligarchy has soared, and social inequality has widened dramatically. Under Obama, 95 percent of all income gains have gone to the richest 1 percent of society, while median household income has declined by thousands of dollars.

In one of the starkest indications of social distress, the death rate in the US increased last year for the first time since 2005, fueled by increases in the rate of death from Alzheimer’s, heart disease, drug overdoses and suicides.

These figures make clear that, far from being a “myth,” working people have seen an enormous reversal in their living standards during the Obama presidency. For all the declarations by Obama and the Democrats that things are better than ever, the vast and pervasive economic distress felt by millions of people is fueling the growth of political opposition, expressed in the ongoing popular support for the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, who claims to be a socialist, as well as the growth of social struggles by the working class, such as last month’s strike by nearly 39,000 communication workers at Verizon.

Recent satisfaction levels are particularly low compared with the high levels of satisfaction measured in the mid-1980s under President Ronald Reagan, in 1991 after the first Gulf War, in the late 1990s and after 9/11.

"Paralleling the ever more extreme concentration of wealth, American politics is acquiring an increasingly dynastic and nepotistic character, traditionally a hallmark of the decay of bourgeois democracy. In a country of 350 million people, the Democratic Party could do no better than nominate as its presidential candidate an individual whose political career is based, to start with, on the fact that she is the wife of a former president."

EVERY DAY, IN EVERY WAY, BARACK OBAMA HAS SABOTAGED AMERICA'S BORDERS AND LAWS TO BUILD HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS.

Average Family Today Has Less Income Than When Obama Took Office

What’s the most important economic statistic to gauge a society’s prosperity?
I often use per-capita economic output when comparing nations.
But for ordinary people, what probably matters most is household income. And if you look at the median household income numbers for the United States, Obamanomics is a failure. According to the Census Bureau’s latest numbers, the average family today has less income (after adjusting for inflation) than when Obama took office.
In an amazing feat of chutzpah, however, the President is actually arguing that he’s done a good job with the economy. His main talking point is that the unemployment rate is down to 4.7 percent.
Yet as discussed in this Blaze TV interview, sometimes the unemployment rate falls for less-than-ideal reasons.

In effect, the President airbrushed history and then tried to take credit for something that happened, at least in part, because of policies he opposed.
Wow.
One final point. I was asked in the interview which policy deserves the lion’s share of the blame for the economy’s tepid performance and weak job numbers.
I wasn’t expecting that question, so I fumbled around a bit before choosing Obamacare.
But with the wisdom of hindsight, I think I stumbled onto the right answer. Yes, the stimulus was a flop, and yes, Dodd-Frank has been a regulatory nightmare, but Obamacare was (and continues to be) a perfect storm of taxes, spending, and regulatory intervention.
And even the Congressional Budget Office estimates it has cost the economy two million jobs.Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy at the Cato Institute. Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax and international tax competition.

Many workers and youth who rallied behindSanders will come to see his campaign as proof ofthe impossibility of transforming the DemocraticParty, one of the two main parties of Wall Streetand the military/intelligence establishment, into aninstrument of progressive change, and theessentially reactionary role of all those who claim

otherwise.

Hillary & Billary….. Operating like third world dictators sucking in the bribes from every criminal and sleaze bag they know and they know all of them!

Cecilia Munoz - Formerly of the 'Tan Klan' now works in Intra-government Affairs for the White House

Radical Mexican Reconquista zealot Munoz speaking at a soireethrown by the miserable ADL.

From the New York Times - October 22, 2000

Despite the fact that the majority of documented Hispanics oppose illegal immigration, as do the majority of Americans, Aztlan and La Raza race hate groups have become the self-appointed voice for a separatist movement that threatens a violent overthrow of the Constitutional system and a barbaric program of ethnic cleansing. This is held up by the media as 'diversity' and to vociferouslyoppose it is scorned as racism. Aztlan and Mecha groups advocate killing all whites and blacks and driving them out of the southern states by means of brutal ethnic cleansing.

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog. It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

AND THE TAKING OF THE GOVERNMENT BYTHE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA “The Race”.

Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning!"

"The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United Statesand violated some ten federal statutes."

Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with $2 billion in donations to their foundation, wealth accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Sec. ofState through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

At the conclusion of an article on the State Department IG’s findings that Hillary Clinton brazenly violated federal record-keeping statutes, National Review’s Andrew McCarthy asks:

“Whatare we to make of Mrs. Clinton’s public posturing that of course[emphasis in original] she is prepared to cooperate -- and encourages hersubordinates to cooperate -- with government investigators?”

Thequestion is obviously rhetorical, but one problem with rhetorical questions isthat we don’t always really answer them, other than shrugging. So allow mein this case to answer that question. What we are to make of Mrs. Clintonis that she is an accomplished career criminal -- and I mean that literally,not rhetorically.

Like alot of accomplished career criminals Mrs. Clinton has committed so many highcrimes and misdemeanors, and gotten away with them to boot, that we tend toforget (or ignore) past acts of lawlessness because the new ones keep oncoming. And like skillful felons the world over, Mrs. Clinton takes fulladvantage of this very human inclination, by sloughing off past accusations as“old news” or the result of biases that have emerged through“misunderstandings.” Anyone who has worked in criminal justice has seen thisphenomenon, where repeat offenders get to know police, prosecutors and judgesso well that law enforcement tires of them -- maybe even comes to like them abit -- and so cut the career criminal a break. And the clever crook knows thistendency and plays upon it. It’s this dynamic that led to the developmentof “three strikes” laws, so such crooks don’t receive unearned or plainlymanipulated sympathy.

DonaldTrump’s recentfaux pasregardingthe long-ago apparent suicide of Clinton confidant Vince Foster is an exampleof this process. Trump, as is his wont, made a poorly thought-out off-the-cuffremark suggesting that Foster was murdered, and that Clinton was behindit. Since this is one crime that the Clintons probably did not commit,Trump’s remark was foolish, since, like accusations about Obama’s birthplace,it just gives the leftist media ammunition to belittle legitimate criticisms.But it was also understandable -- Trump didn’t claim the accusations were true,only that he was aware of them, and given we’re talking about Hillary Clinton,well…

ButTrump needn’t speculate about Foster’s fate, nor should we. Rather than tryingto pin Foster’s death on Hillary, he ought to remind the public of her othercrimes, and launch focused attacks on her documented and provable malfeasances,starting with her cattle futures trading windfall/bribe. Today, Hillary’scattle trading is usually mentioned casually as an indicator of how far back Hillary’scorruption goes, but that crime (from 1978/79) itself is worth revisiting insome detail.

Likemost of Hillary’s wrongdoing, she benefits from the fact that her schemes arecomplex, superficially boring, and often hard for the general public to understand.In that sense it’s understandable that Trump fell into the trap of talkingabout the Foster case. Murder and/or suicide is comprehensible and sexy,trading livestock is not. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s $100,000trading windfall cannot reasonably be seen as anything but a criminalbribe.

Anybodythat knows anything about trading commodities understands that what Hillaryclaims to have done -- turn an initial $1000 investment in cattle futures intoa $100,000 profit ten months later -- is as a practical matter almostimpossible even for the most skilled commodity operator, and absolutelyimpossible for a neophyte such as Hillary was. My father tradedcommodities for decades, was very smart, reasonably good at it, and even ran anadvisory service for a time. He managed to stay ahead but not bymuch. Three quarters of commodity traders lose money, the vast majorityinexperienced traders like Clinton.

Aninexperienced blackjack player would have a much, much easier time turning a$1000 stake at a casino into $100,000, than would a similarly situated personin futures trading, though of course such a blackjack run would require almostperfect play. What Hillary claims to have done would have required divineintervention, or a criminal scheme. Since I am fairly sure the Almighty is noton her side, we need to go with the latter.

Afterthe trading scheme became public in the 1990s, Clinton and her defenders triedto explain the windfall away as a combination of Hillary’s native intelligence,luck, and good advice. But a scholarly paper put out in 1994 by the Journalof Economics and Financecalculated thatthe odds of gaining such a profit in ten monthsunder conditions at the time, and giving the investor the benefit of the doubt,at 31 trillion to 1. By way of comparison, the odds that the blooddetected on O.J. Simpson’s notorious glove (found after the murders atSimpson’s estate), did not contain the blood of his victims is between 21 and 41 billionchances in one. Thus, at least by this metric, itis far, far more likely that O.J. Simpson is innocent of the murders of RonGoldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, than it is that Hillary’s cattle futuresprofit was not illegal. Even a bored, inattentive and not very brightelectorate can understand that. And I understand that some people never willunderstand it no matter what, which is why O.J. walked.

Thefutures trading incident is also notable in that after the scheme became alegal and political issue, Hillary’s cool reaction to it proved to be hercoming out party as an effective mob boss who could handle herself underintense pressure and scrutiny. She was widelypraised in the liberal press for beingforthcoming and unflappable, while also giving no ground, a pattern that wouldrepeat itself again and again, up to the present.

Hillary’scattle futures bribery scheme dates back to the same time frame as she beganher other introductory criminal scam, Whitewater. Fromthere came the Rose Law Firm billing recordsscandal (related to Whitewater), Travelgate, Hillary’s libels against victimsof her husband’s predatory sexual behavior, Troopergate (related to Bill’sdalliances), the White House’s missing furniture, the friendly mortgage for thehouse in Chappaqua, a carpet-bagging Senate run, the Clinton Foundation, payfor play speeches, Benghazi, and the email scandals. (I may have missedone or two others.)

It is abreathtaking history of scandal and criminality that might make Tony Sopranoblush, and is certainly the envy of real life mob bosses cooling their heels inpenitentiaries jail across the nation. Hillary simply has almost all thetraits (and history) of a successful mob boss, including a close knit group ofloyal confederates who operate under a code of omerta.

Trumphas many flaws, but to my knowledge he is not an outright criminal, much less amob boss. Trump needn’t concern himself with Vince Foster. He doesneed to thoughtfullyand aggressively hone his attack on Hillary’senduring criminality. There is plenty to work with.

(THE TRAGEDY FOR LEGALS LIVIING IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA IS THAT
THERE ARE NEARLY 15 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS AND THEY’RE BREEDING LIKE CATHOLIC
BUNNIES. NOW DO THE MATH!)

LA RAZA-OCCUPATION and LOOTING in
MEXIFORNIA…. shocking!

Californians
bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population
estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and
local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total
amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S.
citizen.

"The country is now at the edge
of an abyss following years of obfuscation, unaccountability, subterfuge, and
law evasion by the Obama administration that have numbed much of its citizenry
into a kind of base “group think acceptance” of government corruption and abuse
of power. Resetting Americans’ trust in government needs to start with holding
people in high office, like Hillary Clinton, accountable."